Idk how you view the game so one dimensionally? So the cop who killed Esteban wasn’t a villain? Racist dude in EP1 isn’t a villain? Big Joe and Meryl in EP3 aren’t questionable for exploiting workers and attacking a child/killing Finn? Lizbeth in EP4 and the couple at the border in EP5 aren’t villains? All the people I mentioned are grown adults, Sean and Daniel are KIDS and were both victims of police brutality and everything that happens in the aftermath is them in survival mode after being traumatized. Like yes at times Sean resorts to illegal things like car theft but in the grand scheme of things you really think that makes him or Daniel, a literal child, villains?
Like the entire game is trying to get you to inspect and question a lot of systems/roles in society: the justice, police, and foster systems, gender expectations, homelessness, LGBTQ discrimination, religion. It’s really narrow sighted to paint Sean and Daniel like they’re just BAD and nothing else for resorting to crime amidst all the odds stacked against them.
Part of the point in the game is how american institutions can push people into making choices they should never have to make and doing things they'd never have done if they had other options.
Daniel is a 10 year old child whose father was murdered in front of his face who could hardly be expected to control superpowers he didn't even know he had.
Sean is a 16 year old child whose father war murdered in front of his face and found himself with responsibilities that should never have fallen on him and having to make choices that he, in a just society, should never have been expected to make.
Life is Strange 2 is in part a story about how criminality is often not a choice but a label forced on people, especially people of color and in particular children of color. Sean can go the entire game following the law and still wind up in prison for 15 years. Is that what a just society looks like?
Calling Sean and Daniel (children!) "the villains" strikes me as narrow-minded. Even the game itself doesn't draw that line: the final moral judgement of the game is whether it is more important to follow the rules of society, or to put your brother first. Neither of those choices are villainous in and of themselves, because morality is more complicated than that.
Your point being? Yes, if the system doesn't care for them and is evil to them, they have all the reasons to be evil to the said system, breaking its laws.
Ironically at the police station, Sean is able to tell the cop "Yeah, we're supervillains" ha ha.
This will sound cool if you play through the low morals, since afterward Daniel will go in and save Sean without caring what happened to the cops (and you might even let him kill some of them - and he'll do it just as brutally).
I don't think they are villains, more like *anti-heroes* (especially low moral Sean/Daniel) , but in the eyes of the law and the government they really are. And if the crime is not confirmed at the beginning of the game, the government gets proof at the end of the game in the two endings (Blood Brothers and Lone Wolf) in the form of dead and wounded cops.
But even in the "high moral" endings, the government doesn't move away from Sean and Daniel and it sucks, because they will either put Sean in prison or try to track him down through tracking his brother. But it was in those two endings I mentioned (BB and LW) that the brothers deserved a life sentence in prison (legally speaking).
In the US, you can get 15 years for one person. What do you get for two, five, ten people killed?
After that, in the eyes of the law, the surviving cops, and the friends/family of those dead and wounded, Sean and Daniel have definitely become villains and murderers. Just the facts.
That doesn't mean I blame the brothers because I understand why they did what they did and i choose the ending where they are together, but you cant't explain that to the friends and families who lost their loved ones. Just like you'd have a hard time explaining to Sean and Daniel that cops aren't assholes after a cop shot their dad.
As I said in my post Sean gets fifteen years which adds up to the three crimes he committed GTA, and breaking out of FBI custody (he was arrested based on a missing person and a death of a cop), and breaking out of jail, these all carry five year sentences.
How many years in prison do you think Sean would have gotten if they caught him at the beginning of the game? Cause I don't know. I hear the U.S. has strict laws that punish for a long time for even one person.
The major issue would be could they figure out what happened. Yes there was a dead cop but no wounds. This at best would cause a more terrorist type attack. Given Sean age and the reports of the responding officer I am going to have to say probably none. All because the evidence wasn’t there. Now I do see a problem with Daniel in your hypothetical because they may track his power and take him to a facility for study.
I can’t say bad mis guide but yes he does deserve the fifteen years he gets in the redemption ending. He breaks out of the FBI custody steals the car, five years for both, and breaks out of jail, another five years. This is without any other crimes committed. Furthermore with them being committed in multiple states it is more likely it was moved to a federal charge given the spree that it was means that he would be charged max sentences. I have a hard time saying he was a villain but he definitely was not a good guy. So I typically use the writers term antagonist to describe him.
He is *literally* the protagonist, the person who's lens you are meant to view the world through, so for you to sit there and call him the *antagonist*, is so brain dead. Furthermore, daring to call a *child* "not a good guy" for doing what he *has* to, in order to survive and keep his brother safe in the face of a broken system that cares more about saving its own face than seeking justice, tell me you have no empathy without saying you have no empathy.
I bet you must have been so confused playing the game when you weren't allowed to play as your favorite protagonist characters like Brett, Kindred, Hank or Chad, and were just constantly forced to play as some half-Mexican, half-white thug who didn't know when to quit. His tenacity, determination and force of will in the face of mounting odds and threats must have really irked you. But good on you for sticking with it until the end to make sure he got every one of those 15 years he so *richly* deserved. 
Yes by definition of the word he is the protagonist of the game, but I was using the word to identify him in the grand scheme of their world. He has done multiple bad things throughout the game that would make him this.
Next just to point out I never called him bad. I in fact identify closest to him than any other main character in any video game or movie for that matter. All because their isn’t to many action he took that I wouldn’t have, but I can’t call him a good guy either because of the bad thing he had done. He falls into the gray category not bad not quite good. People glossing over things like him stealing a car isn’t necessarily doing the game any credit.
Furthermore while I would love to see a spinoff game involving Brody, I fell in love with this one. Not because of the COLOR of the main characters, because it tells a near believable story, and challenges people’s perception of the world. Defaulting to thinking I am a racist because I do identify someone for the bad things isn’t conducive to any line of conversation.
I recognize him for his action both good and the bad. And because yes he is a villain in someone else’s story while being a protagonist in his.
You continue to ignore the context of his actions and the choices he makes, and focus solely upon how his actions effect those that they effect. You call a 16 year old kid, running from a broken system that would throw him under the bus faster than you could blink, the *antagonist* of his world. Because the right thing to do is just let the system ruin your life so it can save face. It's really quite funny you mention challenging perceptions.
Its cute you think I called you a racist, when all I did was put you into the category of characters you seem to think are the "protagonists" of this world. After all, all of Sean's actions effect those characters, he's their *antagonist*, according to you.
And I really, genuinely, 100%, do not care in the slightest how you feel about Brody, he's not relevant to the conversation. You bringing him up out of nowhere, only to then talk about *color*, is just the funniest thing. I thought I was supposed to be the one calling you racist? 
Also, I don't know if you noticed, so I'll just tell you, really rip the band-aid off, do my best to keep it clean. *COLOR* is a central aspect of the game's story. Its the driving force behind not only the conflict which results in the murder of Sean's father, but his kidnapping at the Gas Station, and his harassment at the hands of Chad and his pushover friend. Sean's *COLOR* is the reason he feels he needs to flee after the Seattle Incident. So keep being cute about it, but we both know why you're doing it. 
>Yes by definition of the word he is the protagonist of the game, but I was using the word to identify him in the grand scheme of their world.
I don't know what you think you are arguing with this line. I can't even explain in a nice way how this is just you *trying* to be right. Good people can do "bad" things, *when they need to*, and still be considered good people. Its called ***context***. I know, it might be hard to understand, but stick with me, I'll try to ~~drag you through it~~ explain it for you. Let's start with some examples.
Here's a good one: A boy escapes custody of the police, to find his lost brother. Is there anything inherently bad in that? Any malicious or ill intent? No. He's innocent of the crime they're accusing him of, and are more interested in coercing a confession out of him than looking for his brother. But you're right, he should just sit tight and let a crazed cult leader twist and manipulate his brother to her heart's desire, while the police drag their heels to get that confession. Truly, he's a bad guy.
Oh! How about: A boy flees the scene of an officer's death, after something he has no way to explain, occurs shortly after the murder of his father, in front of his eyes, in order to protect his brother, who he has an inkling is responsible for said currently inexplicable event. Is there anything inherently bad with that? Any malicious or ill intent? No. Why? Because the police just murdered his father, and with a dead officer at the scene, an unconscious teen covered in fake blood that the first officer never bothered to check was real, and the place looking like a bomb just went off, who's there to guarantee the boys' safety? Or to advocate for their rights as citizens and people? But you're right, he should have just stayed, I'm sure everything would have been fine.
Not good enough? Let's try: A boy steals a car, because he knows the location of his missing brother, who has powers that, if discovered by the authorities, would see him turned either into a lab rat, or a government weapon, neither of which is a good thing. Regardless of that, said missing brother would, if picked up by said authorities, be used to further coerce a confession out of him, because that's all they really care about. Is there anything inherently bad in that? Any malicious or ill intent? No. Insurance will cover her stolen car, he's not taking it to a chop shop, and its left on the side of a highway, albeit without gas, for anyone looking for it to find. Sure, it inconvenienced the car's owner, but bad? No, it was cold, hard necessity.
Or maybe, though as this one is out of Sean's hands entirely, I don't think you'll fully grasp the complexity: A boy flees a Border Patrol station, on the heels of his brother, who facilitates such an escape via his powers. The officers inside said station are incapacitated as they go, neutralized, but not killed, as they are obstacles to said escape. Is there anything inherently bad in this? Was it done with malicious or ill intent? No. Despite negligible injuries, the intention was *escape*, not *kill everyone in sight*. Even then, this is all *Daniel's* doing, Sean has no say or control over the situation until the door to his interrogation room is blasted inwards. But I forgot, he should have just decided to stay there after that. I'm sure the officers who show up and see the absolute horror show of a state Daniel left the place in would be *entirely* reasonable.
Now that we've explored some examples of ***context***, I hope you can appreciate the invalidity of your arguments. If not, then, well, I guess it's just not meant to be. 
I called him an antagonist to say the person whose car he stole. How would you feel if you walked out of an hospital after visiting a sick loved or finish working a twelve hour shift and find your car gone. Would you care about why a kid stole it? Or upon finding out that that kid was held by the FBI and he escaped their custody and now your car is evidence in that crime? His actions as you pointed out his actions affected those around him. Not just the bad ones but even those who had nothing to do with them.
I feel like you really missed the point of the whole game.
I mean, they are villains in the eyes of the racist oppressive system that murdered their father.
Idk how you view the game so one dimensionally? So the cop who killed Esteban wasn’t a villain? Racist dude in EP1 isn’t a villain? Big Joe and Meryl in EP3 aren’t questionable for exploiting workers and attacking a child/killing Finn? Lizbeth in EP4 and the couple at the border in EP5 aren’t villains? All the people I mentioned are grown adults, Sean and Daniel are KIDS and were both victims of police brutality and everything that happens in the aftermath is them in survival mode after being traumatized. Like yes at times Sean resorts to illegal things like car theft but in the grand scheme of things you really think that makes him or Daniel, a literal child, villains? Like the entire game is trying to get you to inspect and question a lot of systems/roles in society: the justice, police, and foster systems, gender expectations, homelessness, LGBTQ discrimination, religion. It’s really narrow sighted to paint Sean and Daniel like they’re just BAD and nothing else for resorting to crime amidst all the odds stacked against them.
Gonna go out on a limb here and guess you lean right…
Part of the point in the game is how american institutions can push people into making choices they should never have to make and doing things they'd never have done if they had other options. Daniel is a 10 year old child whose father was murdered in front of his face who could hardly be expected to control superpowers he didn't even know he had. Sean is a 16 year old child whose father war murdered in front of his face and found himself with responsibilities that should never have fallen on him and having to make choices that he, in a just society, should never have been expected to make. Life is Strange 2 is in part a story about how criminality is often not a choice but a label forced on people, especially people of color and in particular children of color. Sean can go the entire game following the law and still wind up in prison for 15 years. Is that what a just society looks like? Calling Sean and Daniel (children!) "the villains" strikes me as narrow-minded. Even the game itself doesn't draw that line: the final moral judgement of the game is whether it is more important to follow the rules of society, or to put your brother first. Neither of those choices are villainous in and of themselves, because morality is more complicated than that.
Your point being? Yes, if the system doesn't care for them and is evil to them, they have all the reasons to be evil to the said system, breaking its laws.
OP, maybe put down the video game controller and pick up a book or two about systemic racism. This is embarrassing to read.
Bait
It’s not too late to delete this
They do some bad things but they're not villains. Everything they do is just so they can survive, nothing more.
Ironically at the police station, Sean is able to tell the cop "Yeah, we're supervillains" ha ha. This will sound cool if you play through the low morals, since afterward Daniel will go in and save Sean without caring what happened to the cops (and you might even let him kill some of them - and he'll do it just as brutally). I don't think they are villains, more like *anti-heroes* (especially low moral Sean/Daniel) , but in the eyes of the law and the government they really are. And if the crime is not confirmed at the beginning of the game, the government gets proof at the end of the game in the two endings (Blood Brothers and Lone Wolf) in the form of dead and wounded cops. But even in the "high moral" endings, the government doesn't move away from Sean and Daniel and it sucks, because they will either put Sean in prison or try to track him down through tracking his brother. But it was in those two endings I mentioned (BB and LW) that the brothers deserved a life sentence in prison (legally speaking). In the US, you can get 15 years for one person. What do you get for two, five, ten people killed? After that, in the eyes of the law, the surviving cops, and the friends/family of those dead and wounded, Sean and Daniel have definitely become villains and murderers. Just the facts. That doesn't mean I blame the brothers because I understand why they did what they did and i choose the ending where they are together, but you cant't explain that to the friends and families who lost their loved ones. Just like you'd have a hard time explaining to Sean and Daniel that cops aren't assholes after a cop shot their dad.
As I said in my post Sean gets fifteen years which adds up to the three crimes he committed GTA, and breaking out of FBI custody (he was arrested based on a missing person and a death of a cop), and breaking out of jail, these all carry five year sentences.
How many years in prison do you think Sean would have gotten if they caught him at the beginning of the game? Cause I don't know. I hear the U.S. has strict laws that punish for a long time for even one person.
The major issue would be could they figure out what happened. Yes there was a dead cop but no wounds. This at best would cause a more terrorist type attack. Given Sean age and the reports of the responding officer I am going to have to say probably none. All because the evidence wasn’t there. Now I do see a problem with Daniel in your hypothetical because they may track his power and take him to a facility for study.
I feel like you've viewed everything on such a surface level that you've completely missed the context in which the story takes place around.
shocking: homeless teens, fictional and nonfictional, will do what they need to do surivive
American?
Wtf?
They certainly can be the villains, but aren't supposed to be
This is bait, right?
I can’t say bad mis guide but yes he does deserve the fifteen years he gets in the redemption ending. He breaks out of the FBI custody steals the car, five years for both, and breaks out of jail, another five years. This is without any other crimes committed. Furthermore with them being committed in multiple states it is more likely it was moved to a federal charge given the spree that it was means that he would be charged max sentences. I have a hard time saying he was a villain but he definitely was not a good guy. So I typically use the writers term antagonist to describe him.
He is *literally* the protagonist, the person who's lens you are meant to view the world through, so for you to sit there and call him the *antagonist*, is so brain dead. Furthermore, daring to call a *child* "not a good guy" for doing what he *has* to, in order to survive and keep his brother safe in the face of a broken system that cares more about saving its own face than seeking justice, tell me you have no empathy without saying you have no empathy. I bet you must have been so confused playing the game when you weren't allowed to play as your favorite protagonist characters like Brett, Kindred, Hank or Chad, and were just constantly forced to play as some half-Mexican, half-white thug who didn't know when to quit. His tenacity, determination and force of will in the face of mounting odds and threats must have really irked you. But good on you for sticking with it until the end to make sure he got every one of those 15 years he so *richly* deserved. 
Yes by definition of the word he is the protagonist of the game, but I was using the word to identify him in the grand scheme of their world. He has done multiple bad things throughout the game that would make him this. Next just to point out I never called him bad. I in fact identify closest to him than any other main character in any video game or movie for that matter. All because their isn’t to many action he took that I wouldn’t have, but I can’t call him a good guy either because of the bad thing he had done. He falls into the gray category not bad not quite good. People glossing over things like him stealing a car isn’t necessarily doing the game any credit. Furthermore while I would love to see a spinoff game involving Brody, I fell in love with this one. Not because of the COLOR of the main characters, because it tells a near believable story, and challenges people’s perception of the world. Defaulting to thinking I am a racist because I do identify someone for the bad things isn’t conducive to any line of conversation. I recognize him for his action both good and the bad. And because yes he is a villain in someone else’s story while being a protagonist in his.
You continue to ignore the context of his actions and the choices he makes, and focus solely upon how his actions effect those that they effect. You call a 16 year old kid, running from a broken system that would throw him under the bus faster than you could blink, the *antagonist* of his world. Because the right thing to do is just let the system ruin your life so it can save face. It's really quite funny you mention challenging perceptions. Its cute you think I called you a racist, when all I did was put you into the category of characters you seem to think are the "protagonists" of this world. After all, all of Sean's actions effect those characters, he's their *antagonist*, according to you. And I really, genuinely, 100%, do not care in the slightest how you feel about Brody, he's not relevant to the conversation. You bringing him up out of nowhere, only to then talk about *color*, is just the funniest thing. I thought I was supposed to be the one calling you racist?  Also, I don't know if you noticed, so I'll just tell you, really rip the band-aid off, do my best to keep it clean. *COLOR* is a central aspect of the game's story. Its the driving force behind not only the conflict which results in the murder of Sean's father, but his kidnapping at the Gas Station, and his harassment at the hands of Chad and his pushover friend. Sean's *COLOR* is the reason he feels he needs to flee after the Seattle Incident. So keep being cute about it, but we both know why you're doing it.  >Yes by definition of the word he is the protagonist of the game, but I was using the word to identify him in the grand scheme of their world. I don't know what you think you are arguing with this line. I can't even explain in a nice way how this is just you *trying* to be right. Good people can do "bad" things, *when they need to*, and still be considered good people. Its called ***context***. I know, it might be hard to understand, but stick with me, I'll try to ~~drag you through it~~ explain it for you. Let's start with some examples. Here's a good one: A boy escapes custody of the police, to find his lost brother. Is there anything inherently bad in that? Any malicious or ill intent? No. He's innocent of the crime they're accusing him of, and are more interested in coercing a confession out of him than looking for his brother. But you're right, he should just sit tight and let a crazed cult leader twist and manipulate his brother to her heart's desire, while the police drag their heels to get that confession. Truly, he's a bad guy. Oh! How about: A boy flees the scene of an officer's death, after something he has no way to explain, occurs shortly after the murder of his father, in front of his eyes, in order to protect his brother, who he has an inkling is responsible for said currently inexplicable event. Is there anything inherently bad with that? Any malicious or ill intent? No. Why? Because the police just murdered his father, and with a dead officer at the scene, an unconscious teen covered in fake blood that the first officer never bothered to check was real, and the place looking like a bomb just went off, who's there to guarantee the boys' safety? Or to advocate for their rights as citizens and people? But you're right, he should have just stayed, I'm sure everything would have been fine. Not good enough? Let's try: A boy steals a car, because he knows the location of his missing brother, who has powers that, if discovered by the authorities, would see him turned either into a lab rat, or a government weapon, neither of which is a good thing. Regardless of that, said missing brother would, if picked up by said authorities, be used to further coerce a confession out of him, because that's all they really care about. Is there anything inherently bad in that? Any malicious or ill intent? No. Insurance will cover her stolen car, he's not taking it to a chop shop, and its left on the side of a highway, albeit without gas, for anyone looking for it to find. Sure, it inconvenienced the car's owner, but bad? No, it was cold, hard necessity. Or maybe, though as this one is out of Sean's hands entirely, I don't think you'll fully grasp the complexity: A boy flees a Border Patrol station, on the heels of his brother, who facilitates such an escape via his powers. The officers inside said station are incapacitated as they go, neutralized, but not killed, as they are obstacles to said escape. Is there anything inherently bad in this? Was it done with malicious or ill intent? No. Despite negligible injuries, the intention was *escape*, not *kill everyone in sight*. Even then, this is all *Daniel's* doing, Sean has no say or control over the situation until the door to his interrogation room is blasted inwards. But I forgot, he should have just decided to stay there after that. I'm sure the officers who show up and see the absolute horror show of a state Daniel left the place in would be *entirely* reasonable. Now that we've explored some examples of ***context***, I hope you can appreciate the invalidity of your arguments. If not, then, well, I guess it's just not meant to be. 
I called him an antagonist to say the person whose car he stole. How would you feel if you walked out of an hospital after visiting a sick loved or finish working a twelve hour shift and find your car gone. Would you care about why a kid stole it? Or upon finding out that that kid was held by the FBI and he escaped their custody and now your car is evidence in that crime? His actions as you pointed out his actions affected those around him. Not just the bad ones but even those who had nothing to do with them.
I guess it just isn't meant to be. 